Instability is the New Normal?

Once upon a time, there were safe havens in this world, places where investors
could hide when the going got rough. If you believe this fairy tale world will
persist, pinch yourself. In our assessment, not only are there no safe havens
left, but instability may be the new normal. Is your portfolio ready?

In a 'typical' crisis, if there is such a thing:

• First, the equity markets tend to have a broad sell-off as risky
assets become less popular. Historically, this is where the U.S. dollar or
cash in general has been king. In the Eurozone debt crisis, in this phase,
the Euro was sold as a proxy for all things bad in the Eurozone.

• As a crisis evolves, markets tend to become more differentiating.
When Cyprus "blew up," Spain had a Treasury auction paying the lowest yields
since the early 1990s.

• Moving on even further, the markets get used to the crisis. When
a Portuguese company didn't pay its loans on time, the markets barely blinked.
Part of it was that the risk seemed manageable; but part of it was also that
even though crisis management in the Eurozone continues to be far from perfect,
participants kind of know the game plan to expect. With that, risk can be
priced more appropriately.

Based on this pattern, pundits are quick to encourage investors not to sell
and to buy the dips as the recovery is all but assured. Except, of course,
if you had your money in Cyprus. The 'buying the dip' mentality has reached
extremes; arguably, for good reason: by promising to keep rates lower for longer,
the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world have compressed
risk premia. That is, the premium demanded for "risky" assets has come down.
This may be most apparent in the low yields in junk bonds, an area Fed Chair
Janet Yellen has called bubbly, even if her very policies are a key driver.
In Europe, European Central Bank (ECB) Chief Mario Draghi has promised to do
'whatever it takes.' So why shouldn't investors chase yields in the weaker
Eurozone countries?

What could possibly go wrong?

Anything that looks too good to be true usually is. When risk premia is artificially
depressed, it is understandable that volatility is also depressed. But if risk
premia expands once again, for whatever reason, asset prices may be at risk.
That's because investors may be less inclined to buy stocks or junk bonds if
it suddenly deems riskier. It can be as little as perception ("the glass is
suddenly half empty"); it can be the Fed trying to engineer an 'exit;' or,
for example, it can be geopolitical uncertainty.

There will be lots of confusing signals. For example, for a bit over a year
now, the euro appeared to be the preferred "safe haven" - as investors fled
emerging bond markets, it didn't make it to the U.S. dollar, but to places
such as Spanish and Portuguese bonds. Of late, though, the dollar appears to
show baby steps of yet again being preferred over the euro. But don't be fooled:
the euro is weaker because of the risk that Russia might turn off the gas supply
to Europe if the Ukrainian crisis were to escalate. Yet again, while the dollar
has strengthened a tiny bit, the yield chasers mostly went right back into
emerging markets, with some currencies there rising versus the greenback. This
appears more a shuffle by high stakes yield chasers rather than a flight to
safety.

While anyone may be excused for being confused by the headlines, consider
the medium term outlook: pundits have suggested the Fed will only engineer
an exit if the economy looks better. The corollary is that asset prices should
then be able to stomach the headwinds caused by rising risk premia. Except
that I have my doubts that good news in a market that's near historic highs
will compensate sufficiently for the headwinds of common sense. Let me be clearer:
I'm concerned that even if, say, earnings improve, equity prices are at risk
as price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios compress. Similarly, even if default rates
don't jump, bonds could fall.

And why do I say 'headwinds of common sense'? That's because the markets are
historically a risky place to be in. It's just of late that equity prices have
risen on the backdrop of ever greater complacency (lower volatility). In such
an environment, investors are chasing performance unaware of the risks they
are taking on. Such investors are referred to as "weak hands" - they will be
quick to jump ship when the going gets rough. And don't think most will get
out at the top, as investors have been conditioned to buy the dips. To me,
it is no question that volatility - read fear - will come back. The question
only is can current asset prices withstand fear?

Similarly, I hear folks arguing we shouldn't be afraid of higher rates, as
rates will only go up as the economy improves. In my assessment, Yellen has
all but promised us to be late in raising rates. I can see her move nominal
interest rates a little higher; but on a real basis, i.e. after inflation,
I very much doubt we will see higher rates. Think about how interests are aligned
when both government and consumers have too much debt? They both benefit from
higher inflation, i.e. debasing the value of the debt. Who is losing out? Foreigners
holding US debt may well be on the losing end of this battle. As foreigners
don't vote, their opinion may matter little.

If you are a consumer with savings rather than debt, be aware that your government's
interests are not aligned with your interests. Don't count on the government
to protect the purchasing power of your savings. Just keep in mind that during
the past 100 years when government debt was generally much lower, the greenback
lost over 96% of its purchasing power (as measured by the CPI). Differently
said, if you are not concerned, you are not paying attention.

Instability the New Normal?

But if a crisis can be priced in, so should be a risky environment, right?
It all depends on where one is coming from and where one is heading. We are
coming from a highly complacent environment, but are heading towards one that
may be ever less stable. I've already discussed rising risk premia that should
be part of the normalization process. But my negative sentiment extends further.

When I raise my concerns, skeptics point out that the financial system as
a whole is a lot more robust now. That's correct in some ways, but has come
at a high price: the destruction of the social fabric and political disintegration.
By reflating asset prices, those holding assets disproportionally benefit,
increasing the wealth gap. Indeed, I would argue policies of the Fed have a
far greater impact on wealth distribution than the policies of Republicans
or Democrats. Those that know how to deal with easy money, such as hedge funds,
can do great in this environment; however, those that don't know how to deal
with debt easily fall through the cracks, unable to recover.

This isn't just a U.S. problem. Citizens in large parts of the world are dissatisfied
with their political leadership. The reason, in my assessment, is that they
have seen their purchasing power decline. In my analysis, when citizens see
their purchasing power erode over longer periods, they veer towards more populist
politicians and explain:

• The rise of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements in the
U.S.;

• Uprisings in the Middle East;

• A populist Prime Minister in Japan; and, amongst others,

• The rise of populist parties in Europe.

Folks in the Middle East start revolutions because they can't feed themselves
anymore as food and energy prices have risen. These trends have come on the
backdrop of excessive government debt. Ukraine's problem is that they can't
balance their books; for now, they have the European Union take over from Russia
subsidizing Ukraine. Politicians the world over have in common that they rarely
ever blame themselves for the plight of their own people. They tend to blame
the wealthy, a minority or foreigners.

To put it bluntly, there's a reason the Great Depression ended in World War
II. We don't predict World War III is about to break out, but the aftermath
of a credit bust is a fertile environment for the sort of dynamics that can
lead to armed conflict. Russia has an interest in an unstable Ukraine; Japan
might ramp up military spending to boost domestic growth, to name but two sources
of instability. The U.S., a superpower no longer able to finance all of its
commitments is not exactly a source of stability, either: the biggest threat
to U.S. national security may not be China or Russia, it's the national debt.

As the social fabric in the U.S. erodes, I believe we will elect more populist
politicians, making it unlikely that we will come up with major entitlement
reform to make deficits sustainable. I was dismayed by Janet Yellen's testimony
last week in which she was either evasive or ignorant about the cost of financing
U.S. deficits as rates rise. If she was evasive, she missed a major opportunity
to try to foster a national debate. While she provided lip service to the fact
that costs will rise as rates move up, she failed to say that if we were to
move back to historic rates, we could spend $1 trillion more a year a decade
from now servicing the national debt (that's based on CBO projections and historic
levels of interest rates). If she is ignorant of the numbers, I'm no less concerned.
Either way, though, odds are the Fed may try to keep borrowing costs low, making
the discussion irrelevant. It's in this context that I believe real interest
rates will stay low for a long time, as I don't think we can afford positive
real interest rates for any extended period. This is the key reason why I like
gold as an investment, as low to negative real interest rates may make the
shiny metal that pays no interest (but cannot be easily 'printed') a formidable
asset.

To summarize:

• Asset prices are at or near record levels;

• Fear appears almost absent from the markets, complacency near record
levels;

• Political instability is on the rise as governments drown in debt.

The first two attributes alone should encourage investors to consider rebalancing
their portfolios, taking chips off the table.

But where to hide? Historically, bonds or cash are preferred hiding places;
even as bonds have performed just fine of late, I can't help but be concerned
bonds might be one of the worst investments over the next decade. I don't advocate
shorting bonds (it can be very expensive to short bonds as interest is to be
paid rather than received), but rather consider shorting the dollar should
real interest rates continue to be negative. Broadly speaking, buying anything
with one's dollars is akin to shorting dollars. But one can be specific by
buying precious metals; one can diversify to baskets of currencies, possibly
be tactical in an effort to stay a step ahead as currency wars may be raging;
or one goes up the risk ladder to, say, buy equities. Indeed, equities have
performed well relative to cash; but as I think I make very clear in this analysis
here, I'm afraid investors buying equities now may be late to the party.

The bad news is that there's no silver bullet, as there may be no such thing
anymore as a 'safe' asset. The good news is that many investors could benefit
from stress testing their portfolio.

Axel Merk, President & CIO of Merk Investments, LLC, is an expert on hard
money, macro trends and international investing. He is considered an authority
on currencies.

The Merk Absolute Return Currency Fund seeks to generate positive absolute
returns by investing in currencies. The Fund is a pure-play on currencies,
aiming to profit regardless of the direction of the U.S. dollar or traditional
asset classes.

The Merk Asian Currency Fund seeks to profit from a rise in Asian currencies
versus the U.S. dollar. The Fund typically invests in a basket of Asian currencies
that may include, but are not limited to, the currencies of China, Hong Kong,
Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan and Thailand.

The Funds may be appropriate for you if you are pursuing a long-term goal
with a currency component to your portfolio; are willing to tolerate the risks
associated with investments in foreign currencies; or are looking for a way
to potentially mitigate downside risk in or profit from a secular bear market.
For more information on the Funds and to download a prospectus, please visit www.merkfunds.com.

Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks and charges
and expenses of the Merk Funds carefully before investing. This and other
information is in the prospectus, a copy of which may be obtained by visiting
the Funds' website at www.merkfunds.com or calling 866-MERK FUND. Please
read the prospectus carefully before you invest.

The Funds primarily invest in foreign currencies and as such, changes in
currency exchange rates will affect the value of what the Funds own and the
price of the Funds' shares. Investing in foreign instruments bears a greater
risk than investing in domestic instruments for reasons such as volatility
of currency exchange rates and, in some cases, limited geographic focus,
political and economic instability, and relatively illiquid markets. The
Funds are subject to interest rate risk which is the risk that debt securities
in the Funds' portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market
interest rates. The Funds may also invest in derivative securities which
can be volatile and involve various types and degrees of risk. As a non-diversified
fund, the Merk Hard Currency Fund will be subject to more investment risk
and potential for volatility than a diversified fund because its portfolio
may, at times, focus on a limited number of issuers. For a more complete
discussion of these and other Fund risks please refer to the Funds' prospectuses.

This report was prepared by Merk
Investments LLC, and reflects the current opinion of the authors. It
is based upon sources and data believed to be accurate and reliable. Merk
Investments LLC makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing
in the products herein. Opinions and forward-looking statements expressed
are subject to change without notice. This information does not constitute
investment advice and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific investment.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is provided solely
for educational and informational purposes. The information provided does
not constitute legal, financial or tax advice. You should obtain advice specific
to your circumstances from your own legal, financial and tax advisors. As
with any investment, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.